Calling mak127 owners- what eyepiece have you used for deep sky obs?

[Hyperion76]

Expanding/improving my eyepiece collection and whilst I understand that my mak 127 is really not made for deep sky viewing it would be great to here from other owners what eyepiece they use for the grey fuzzies?

Thanks

Rob

[chiltonstar]

I use a Meade 32mm EP for lowest magnification - cheapish and seems to suit me nicely wrt to FoV.

Chris

[paulyg]

I'm also interested in any answers to this question.

I was thinking of buying a BST Explorer / StarGuider ED 32mm for the exact same purpose and scope ( I have the 8mm already). But then this thread makes it sound like anything more than 25mm might be overkill: http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/45027-skymax-127-32mm-super-plossl-or-40mm/#entry451469

What do other people use?

[John]

The 32mm plossl gives the widest apparent field of view that can be obtained in the 1.25" format. The BST Starguider / Explorer ED eyepieces have a 60 degree apparent field but stop at 25mm. The widest apparent field that can be delivered by a 25mm eyepiece in the 1.25" fitting is about 68 degrees. That would show about the same amount of sky as the 32mm plossl does. The inside diameter of the 1.25" barrel limits the size of the field stop that can be used to around 27mm / 28mm and it's that which limits the apparent field of view of the eyepiece.

[Schorhr]

T2-2" Adapter, 40mm erfle ;-)

Depends on the field stop diameter of the Mak though, for my 4" it did Not make Sense.

[John]

T2-2" Adapter, 40mm erfle ;-)

Depends on the field stop diameter of the Mak though, for my 4" it did Not make Sense.

I think the 127mm mak has a rear port of around 25mm-28mm in diameter so that would be narrower than the field stop in the 2" Erfle eyepiece. As Rob says, the maksutov-cassegrain is not a wide field design.

[Schorhr]

Unfortunately I do not have a 127mm Mak, considered getting one though before buying the Heritage, and saw a discussion about the 2" adapter, that 2" will not be completely illiminated, but more field was visible with a 32mm erfle then with the 32mm plössl.

German discussion (try google translator if you care to read it)

http://forum.astronomie.de/phpapps/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/593861/SkyWatcher_Mak_127_1500_dazu_g

Adapter

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p286_Adapter-vom-Skywatcher-Maksutov-auf-2-.html

But of course together with a 2" diagonal, it get's kind of pricey.

So 32mm Plössl is the best deal...

[paulyg]

Thanks John. It turns out that I had misread a few of the threads I'd read and didn't grasp the limitations were on the eyepiece 1.25" format ( I thought it was something to do with the scope barrel). I've just been entering numbers for the BST Explorer 32mm / Baader Hyperion 25mm / Skywatcher stock 25mm into the eyepiece calculator at http://www.davidpaulgreen.com/tec.html and I think I get it now.

// sorry for hijacking your thread Rob.

[JulianFR]

The Maxvision 24mm is my lowest power for DSOs, followed by my 18mm BST Starguider. I'm thinking of getting a 32mm-ish EP, but it would be a 2" so I wouldn't be able to use it with the Mak. As you pointed out though the Mak isn't really a deep-sky scope ... I use my SW ST 120 for that.

[Hyperion76]

Thanks foe the replies ,so my32 omni plossl is ok but surely there must be something better out there?

Meade has similar fov?

Don't really want to go down 2" route.

Rob

[YKSE]

Thanks foe the replies ,so my32 omni plossl is ok but surely there must be something better out there?

Meade has similar fov?

Don't really want to go down 2" route.

Rob

Rob,

You don't need to go down 2" route, since it simply doesn't increase field of view in 127Mak.

as John mentioned above, the field stop of 127MAK is about 25 to 28mm, this is the limitation how widest field of view you can get with this scope. a 32mm plossl with 52 deg FOV or a 24mm EP with 68deg FOV will show you the widest FOV in127Mak.

[RikM]

My son has a Skymax 127 and the most used eyepiece is a 15mm plossl. This seems to give the optimum magnification / field for the majority of DSO's. Apart from a few huge ones, most DSO's are fairly small and the Skymax does quite well for such a compact scope. It is not always about delivering the widest field but more about optimum contrast.

[Schorhr]

TS writes it on their english product description too, though;

The german Forum members Report significant more field but of course illumination is an issue.

Also relevant: http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/5950491/Main/5948666

[Hyperion76]

Thankyou all for you thoughts.

[crmcg]

I use a Celestron X-Cel 18mm with my Apex 127 for DSO's. 60 degree FOV, 83X Magnification, let me pick M57 from extremely light polluted skies with the sun only 10 degrees below the horizon.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Astro_noob]

I have a startravel 120 and a 2" diagonal. I own a 2" 40mm eyepiece and have bought both a 127mm mak and a 2" adapter to use on the mak. I will fit this tonight and let you know my thoughts.

[stevend]

I use a 25mm BST for DSO, the BST giving a much better contrast than the stock lens. I am inclined to look at DSOs when there are good conditions and feel that that counts for more than using another lens.

That is not to say that I at times I wish for a wider view (eg like everytime I see the Pleiades) but I am not sure whether the 127Mak is capable of improving that much even with a different lens.

If in the future I decide to really concentrate on DSOs, then I will consider that a reasonable excuse to buy another scope.

[Astro_noob]

There's no contest between the 127 mak and st120 on Star fields, the at120 has magnificently wide field whereas the 127 mak is like looking through a straw in comparison. If you want deep space then a mak is not suited to this but is great on the moon, planets and detailed views of stars.

[Baffa]

I mostly use a 32mm plössl with mine. I tend only to use my mak during the day time, for birdwatching or some other animals that happen to catch my interest in my backyard, I must say the optics are really great! Beats the most I looked through, for daytime use that is.

And oh, almost forgot, the occasional lunar "walking" is always excellent with this little scope.

[Astro_noob]

I attached my 40mm 2" eyepiece (72 degree) to the 127 mak tonight and compared it with a 25mm plossl (52 degree). There is a significantly wider field of view through the 40mm than through the 25mm. No surprise there, however due to the maximum aperture of the rear cell of the mak previously mentioned in another post, there is some light cutoff which does not allow the 40mm to provide its maximum field of view. This does provide evidence though that a 2" eyepiece with a field stop of less or equal to 28mm will provide the maximum field of view possible for this telescope bringing the instrument closer to a hybrid telescope for relatively large deep space objects as well as inter solar system objects i.e. planets and the moon.

The testing was performed on a electrical pylon close to my house so does not reflect how the instrument will function on actual deep space targets.

[Steve_meg]

17.3 mm delos worked brilliantly on my friends mak

[John]

.... This does provide evidence though that a 2" eyepiece with a field stop of less or equal to 28mm will provide the maximum field of view possible for this telescope ....

Yes indeed. But you don't need a 2" eyepiece to achieve that.

[SiriusB]

2" 40mm 60 AFOV ~ approx 1.6 deg, TFOV vignetting very apparent but useable~for me at least, as it's easier to find stuff on an undriven alt az.

2" 32mm 60 AFOV~ approx 1.4 deg TFOV vignetting  mildly noticable.

1.25" 32mm 52 deg~ approx 1.1 deg TFOV no vignetting apparent, but it's still there  on paper at least.

Certainly Defies the laws of Physics,if not plain old common sense, but works for me.

Bigger problem to me is 2" diag & ep make the  wee mak rather bottom end heavy.

Also in such a scenario you may find eyepieces blackout more readily than in a scope with no restriction.

If you already have 2" accessories give it a go, probably better sticking with 1.25" otherwise.

Interestingly, once object found, i find the mak will take a higher power more readily on any given object/night than my st120.